Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
might address that gap. [laughter] there are six products of harvard law school and three products of yale law school on the supreme court. there are apparently no other law schools in the united states. [laughter] besides those two. no, it is a bizarre and unfortunately fact, i think. but those are, i hope, interesting facts about the supreme court. but frankly, i don't think they're very important. here's an important fact. about the supreme court. there are five republicans and four democrats. i will speak for somewhat longer, but this is basically all you need to know. [laughter] if be there's a takeaway here, i have gotten to the point early. there are five republicans and four democrats, and that really tells you much of what you need to know. and it is true that the justices wear robes because they're supposed to look all alike, and they're supposed to look, you know, it's supposed to give the perception that they're all pretty much the same, but just as on the other side of first street the united states congress is deeply divided according to party, so is the united states
lost his job. the brennan center at nyu school of law has been thorough investigation at the idea of voter fraud. they say basically it doesn't exist. there've been 10 or 12 cases in the first 10 years of this century out of hundreds of millions of those spirits someone may register as mickey mouse, but mickey mouse never shows up in rows. but nevertheless, rove has initiated a cam pain and its allies in more than 30 states legislature of having votes requiring voter ids. now part of the democrats are saying this is a severe form of voter suppression. that is in many cases you find the elderly was given up their drivers licenses, but it's perfect years, the out they no longer have a government issued i.d., so they are not allowed to vote. you have minorities that is hispanic. one of the challenge is hispanic timebomb. now there'll be 70 million in 2020. if they start to vote on that, it's going to be curtains for the republican speakers 10 million hispanics in texas alone. states like texas and arizona will flip from red to blue very soon, when sakic said. so this is one thing the
and groups of men. rather than as the law holds right now, men and women in comparable jobs in the same job. so what they're trying to do is have equal pay for equal work, not equal pay for equal work, which is two very different things. there's no reason why groups of women and groups of men in the same firm should be paid the same if they have radically different jobs. look at exxon, for example, that is a group of men and oil drilling activities. it's a dirty dangerous job. you could not get me to do. you have to pay people a lot to risked their lives doing that kind of work. exxon has a group of women in communications, assistant jobs, publications. there's no reason these two groups should be necessarily paid the same. but the paycheck benefit would be moving toward requiring firms to pay men and women the same, even if they're in very different jobs. that is not paycheck fairness. that's communism. >> diana furchtgott-roth, your book, women's figures, was there a time when women were treated unfairly in the work place? >> there certainly was. there were times in the 1950s and 1960s, y
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3